My question is obviously about the Coriolis effect. Namely, what causes it in a Flat Earth model. I've seen the wiki, I've read some previous threads and it seems like there's no Coriolis Effect per se, it's just how the winds move? If that's a misrepresentation please let me know.

If that's true, that begs the question what causes wind movement. In a RE model, large scale wind patterns are driven entirely by heating. What's the mechanism in FE?

I am interested in this topic, and want to post what I consider fairly strong evidence for the Coriolis effect:

In that video, a manufacturer demonstrates how the Coriolis effect can affect a shooter's accuracy. The demonstration has them shooting at an eastern target at 1,000 yards, and then at a western target at 1,000 yards, and then compare the impact points.

The intent is for their customers to get more consistent (reproducible) results. I posit that it would not be in their best interest to mislead their customers about the Coriolis effect, so it is unlikely that this company is part of any conspiracy. Because of that, I trust that the shooter was doing his best to hit the center of the target. That is why I accept this video as fairly strong evidence of the Coriolis effect.

Having said all that, I am eager to learn how this could happen on a flat Earth, and why it behaves differently when shooting north and/or south vs. east and/or west.

I am not here to convert you. I want to know enough to be able to defend the RE model.

If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.

If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.

Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?

Do bullets have engines, control surfaces, or any inbuilt means of navigation and/or directional control?

Quote

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.

And, with the exception of local weather systems, the atmosphere does the same. If it didn't, we'd have 1000mph westerly winds at the equator 24/7/365. No?

Bill Bryson did a good Popular Science summary of it;

Quote

The process that moves air around in the atmosphere is the same process that drives the internal engine of the planet, namely convection. Moist warm air from the equatorial region rises until it hits the barrier of the tropopause and spreads out. As it travels away from the equator and cools, it sinks. When it hits bottom, some of the sinking air looks for an area of low pressure to fill and heads back to the equator, completing the circuit. At the equator the convection process is generally stable and the weather predictably fair, but in temperate zones the patterns are far more seasonal, localized, and random, which results in an endless battle between systems of high-pressure air and low. Low-pressure systems are created by rising air, which conveys water molecules into the sky, forming clouds and eventually rain. Warm air can hold more moisture than cool air, which is why tropical and summer storms tend to be the heaviest. Thus low (pressure) areas tend to be associated with clouds and rain, and highs generally spell sunshine and fair weather. When two such systems meet, it often becomes manifest in the clouds. For instance, stratus clouds—those unlovable, featureless sprawls that give us our overcast skies—happen when moisture-bearingupdrafts lack the oomph to break through a level of more stable air above, and instead spread out, like smoke hitting a ceiling. Indeed, if you watch a smoker sometime, you can get a very good idea of how things work by watching how smoke rises from acigarette in a still room. At first it flows straight up (this is called a laminar flow, if you need to impress anyone), and then it spreads out in a diffused, wavy layer. The greatest supercomputer in the world, taking measurements in the most carefully controlled environment, cannot tell you what form these ripplings will take, so you can imagine the difficulties thatconfront meteorologists when they try to predict such motions in a spinning, windy, large-scale world.

What we do know is that because heat from the Sun is unevenly distributed, differences in air pressure arise on the planet. Air can’t abide this, so it rushes around trying to equalize things everywhere. Wind is simply the air’s way of trying to keep things in balance. Air always flows from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure (as you would expect; think of anything with air under pressure—a balloon or air tank— and think how insistently that pressured air wants to get someplace else), and thegreater the discrepancy in pressures the faster the wind blows. Incidentally, wind speeds, like most things that accumulate, grow exponentially, so a wind blowing at two hundred miles an hour is not simply ten times stronger than a wind blowing at twenty miles an hour, but a hundred times stronger—and hence that much more destructive. Introduce several million tons of air to this accelerator effect and the result can be exceedingly energetic. A tropical hurricane can release in twenty four hours as much energy as a rich, medium-sized nation like Britain or France uses in a year.

The impulse of the atmosphere to seek equilibrium was first suspected by Edmond Halley—the man who was everywhere—and elaborated upon in the eighteenth century by his fellow Briton George Hadley, who saw that rising and falling columns of air tended to produce “cells” (known ever since as “Hadley cells”). Though a lawyer by profession, Hadley had a keen interest in the weather (he was, after all, English) and also suggested a link between his cells, the Earth’s spin, and the apparent deflections of air that give us our trade winds. However, it was an engineering professor at the École Polytechnique in Paris, Gustave-Gaspard de Coriolis, who worked out the details of these interactions in 1856, and thus we call it the Coriolis effect. (Coriolis’s other distinction at the school was to introduce watercoolers, which are still known there as Corios, apparently). The Earth revolves at a brisk 1,041 miles an hour at the equator, though as you move toward the poles the rate slopes off considerable, to about 600 miles an hour in London or Paris, for instance. The reason for this is self-evident when you think about it. If you are on the equator the spinning Earth has to carry you quite a distance—about 40,000 kilometers—to get you back to the same spot. If you stand beside the North Pole, however, you may need travel only a few feet to complete a revolution, yet in both cases it takes twenty-four hours to get you back to where you began. Therefore, it follows that the closer you get to the equator the faster you must be spinning. The coriolis effect explains why anything moving through the air in a straight line laterally to the Earth’s spin will, given enough distance seem to curve to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern as the Earth revolves beneath it. The standard way to envision this is to imagine yourself at the center of a large carouseland tossing a ball to someone positioned on the edge. By the time the ball gets to the perimeter, the target person has moved on and the ball passes behind him. From this perspective, it looks like tops. The coriolis effect is also why naval guns firing artillery shells have to adjust to left or right; a shell fired fifteen miles would otherwise deviate by about a hundred yards and plop harmlessly into the sea.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 09:29:40 PM by Tumeni »

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph.

If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York.

Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?

1) It does not take 5 hours to fly from LAX to SeaTAc. It is less than 3 hours terminal to terminal. About 2.5 hours air time at an average speed of ~380 mph.

2) The aircraft is aerodynamically connected to the atmosphere which follows the earth around and can and will exert considerable side drag on the plane. Plenty to minimize any Coriolis effect as it flies north.

3) The speed or rotation at LAX 638 mph and at SeaTac it's 519 mph. A difference of only 119 mph.

You need to check your 'facts' before embarrassing yourself like this. Worked in the aircraft business as an engineer, eh? Right.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 10:17:16 PM by BillO »

Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph. (image of a globe with trajectories and rotation)

If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York. (map of the US)

Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?

IMO, the other replies suffice. But to recap:1. Planes adjust their direction and speed, bullets do not.2. Earth's tangential speed at LAX is closer to 850 MPH.3. While the aircraft is on the ground, it is moving with the Earth at about 850 MPH. Do you claim that when it takes off, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the craft?4. Let's presume that the aircraft does NOT lose that tangential speed when it takes off (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the aircraft is not affected all that much.

Do you want me to explain why the airplane and the bullet are not comparable? I can, if you need.

I am not here to convert you. I want to know enough to be able to defend the RE model.

If the earth spins whilst the bullet is off the ground for a second moving the place it hits ... what happens when an aircraft flies South to North?

According to your theory, the aircraft takes off and the ground moves underneath it ... at 1,000mph. (image of a globe with trajectories and rotation)

If I flew from Los Angeles to Seattle (due North), that flight takes 5 hours in a commercial airliners. Meanwhile the earth moved 5000 miles east under me. So when I come down to land ... I actually land in New York. (map of the US)

Or do aircraft not get effected by Coriolis, it only works on bullets?

IMO, the other replies suffice. But to recap:1. Planes adjust their direction and speed, bullets do not.2. Earth's tangential speed at LAX is closer to 850 MPH.3. While the aircraft is on the ground, it is moving with the Earth at about 850 MPH. Do you claim that when it takes off, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the craft?4. Let's presume that the aircraft does NOT lose that tangential speed when it takes off (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the aircraft is not affected all that much.

Do you want me to explain why the airplane and the bullet are not comparable? I can, if you need.

1. So an aircraft flying North constantly steers left?2. Ok, so 850MPh .... the earth is still moving underneath the aircraft right? You don't land where you intend any more than you hit the target where you intend. You miss.3. While the bullet is in the barrel, it is moving with the earth at 850Mph. Do you claim when you fire the gun, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the barrel of the gun?4. Let's presume that the bullet does NOT lose that tangential speed when it is fired (since that is our reality). The Earth is still spinning, but so is the atmosphere. So the bullet is not affected all that much.

It reads to me like you haven't noted any of my objections at all. You seem to assume bullets must be effected by Coriolis and aircraft not ... and in both cases purely because you have been told this. You don't actually know in either case. What makes a bullet and an aircraft different? Both travel through the air. If I choose Concorde, the bullet and aircraft can be doing the same speed. They both start at 850mph according to you. The both finish at 850mph. But the aircraft is in the air a lot longer. So it should be effected much worse. We don't see this. Before you say bullets aren't effected by drag, that would mean snipers don't adjust their shots for wind. We know they do, even in light winds.

A manufacturer claiming their weapons are so accurate that they pick up something imperceptible to you like the spinning earth is a marketing tool. And of course earth spinning is imperceptible because it doesn't happen. If you can change the course of a bullet by a foot travelling at mach 1.5 in just one or two seconds, you can knock a human over. Because that would require one hell of a tangential force. Coriolis is bunk. It does not appear anywhere we expect it to do so. Not toilets flushing, smoke rising, bullets firing or oceans spinning. Its a bodge of a theory to explain something that doesn't happen.

No, it steers according to the route it intends to take, and to take account of local weather.

If Seattle and LA have moved (say) 1000 miles Eastward during (say) a one-hour flight section between LA and Seattle, the atmosphere has, in general, also moved in sync with those cities. Otherwise both would experience 1000mph winds 24/7/365

The Earth rotates and it has, over time, taken the atmosphere with it, such that both are to most intents and purposes, in sync.

2. Ok, so 850MPh .... the earth is still moving underneath the aircraft right? You don't land where you intend any more than you hit the target where you intend. You miss.

3. While the bullet is in the barrel, it is moving with the earth at 850Mph. Do you claim when you fire the gun, it loses that energy? If so, what force causes the loss of energy? Over what time frame is that energy lost? If it instantly loses that energy, how does this not cause catastrophic structural damage to the barrel of the gun?

So; the charge detonates, this accelerates the bullet, leaving the casing and the exhaust product of the detonation behind, as well as the gun. I have no data at present on when the bullet reaches max speed, nor where this occurs, whether that's in the barrel, or after it leaves, but one thing is for sure - there's no more power applied to it once the explosive charge in the round is spent. It's on its own after that.

Yes, the bullet will start to lose energy/momentum/inertia once its max speed has been reached. Air resistance and gravity will do that to it. If directed upward, it will reach a certain height, dictated by starting speed, weight, air density, height above sea level, and then it will fall back to Earth.

The aircraft differs in that it applies power to keep it moving forwards, and it has wings which generate lift from that forward motion. The bullet has neither. The aircraft also has control surfaces to modify lift and direction, all of which are lacking from the bullet

It reads to me like you haven't noted any of my objections at all. You seem to assume bullets must be effected by Coriolis and aircraft not ... and in both cases purely because you have been told this.

What's wrong with being 'told' something? That's how knowledge is acquired, verbally or textually. Do you automatically disregard everything that someone tells you, or everything you read?

What makes a bullet and an aircraft different?

One is actively powered during and throughout the flight, the other not. You know which.

Shut off the aircraft engines, and it will soon behave like a bullet, I assure you.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

If Seattle and LA have moved (say) 1000 miles Eastward during (say) a one-hour flight section between LA and Seattle, the atmosphere has, in general, also moved in sync with those cities. Otherwise both would experience 1000mph winds 24/7/365

The Earth rotates and it has, over time, taken the atmosphere with it, such that both are to most intents and purposes, in sync.[/color]

Again, why does the same thing not happen to the bullet? Concorde flew faster than a speeding bullet. It was in the air for hours. If a bullet moves a foot in 1 second, why doesn't concorde, and if concorde is in the air for hours, how many miles is it missing airports by?

So; the charge detonates, this accelerates the bullet, leaving the casing and the exhaust product of the detonation behind, as well as the gun. I have no data at present on when the bullet reaches max speed, nor where this occurs, whether that's in the barrel, or after it leaves, but one thing is for sure - there's no more power applied to it once the explosive charge in the round is spent. It's on its own after that.

Yes, the bullet will start to lose energy/momentum/inertia once its max speed has been reached. Air resistance and gravity will do that to it. If directed upward, it will reach a certain height, dictated by starting speed, weight, air density, height above sea level, and then it will fall back to Earth.

The aircraft differs in that it applies power to keep it moving forwards, and it has wings which generate lift from that forward motion. The bullet has neither. The aircraft also has control surfaces to modify lift and direction, all of which are lacking from the bullet [/color]

So the aircraft is steering left when it travels north? If the aircraft travels 600mph and the earth is moving 600mph to the left underneath it, it literally heads 45 degrees from where it wants to go in order to get there. Are you sure?

What's wrong with being 'told' something? That's how knowledge is acquired, verbally or textually. Do you automatically disregard everything that someone tells you, or everything you read?

Well I'm telling you that the idea a bullet moves with Coriolis and that an aircraft doesn't is ridiculous, and when you think about that, you would probably agree ... judging by these poor rebuttals. But you are sticking to your guns because you've been given a ropey theory and you WANT to stick to it.

Shut off the aircraft engines, and it will soon behave like a bullet, I assure you.

So gliders have to constantly steer against the effect of Coriolis? They can be in the air for hours. Engage your brain.

Well, as I see it;

Gliders rely on thermal currents; rising areas of warm air; to stay up, and on a far, far bigger wing in relation to the body size of the craft to generate more lift. If the glider can't find a thermal, it soon comes down. Have you ever seen a commercial, multiple-passenger glider? Or do they typically carry one or two people, max.?

(Since you mentioned it, I have now read that the world record glider flight for a single-seat craft stands at just over 1000 miles, and was set in 1983; the record for a dual-seat craft is far less. Hardly a sound basis for commercial flight. But should I disregard this as something that I've been 'told'? )

Aircraft with engines do not share these design traits. Smaller wings, larger body, far heavier payload. This source suggests that a typical airliner will only last 130 miles, IF it is already at 40,000 feet or so.

The Space Shuttle was a glider, with a stubby delta wing format, and a large body in relation to the wing size, and that only went in one direction after re-entry - down.

Again, as with the powered craft (but this time the warm air provides the 'power') the glider negotiates the local conditions, but in general is still moving along with the atmosphere, which is moving at broadly the same pace as the Earth below.

============================================================Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

There is a round earth answer to his, but you are a million miles from it.

Speed isn't the key. Aircraft can travel faster than bullets. Time is in favour of the aircraft, much more time to move with Coriolis. Distance is also favouring the aircraft.Powered flight is irrelevant ... that's a force pushing forward which will not cancel lateral movement (the resultant vector).Both experience drag ... otherwise bullets would not stop and snipers wouldn't adjust for wind.

I love problems like this. I googled on the internet, checked pilots forums, physics forums ... no one knows the answer. Its actually very simple ... but google is going to be no help to you. You are going to have to reason the problem for yourself. And when you get there, you'll have learned something.

I love problems like this. I googled on the internet, checked pilots forums, physics forums ... no one knows the answer. Its actually very simple ... but google is going to be no help to you. You are going to have to reason the problem for yourself. And when you get there, you'll have learned something.

Both an airplane and a bullet experience the Coriolis effect. The effect isn't caused by the "rotation of the earth" it's caused by the "change in angular rotation of the earth". Both the plane and the bullet start out in the frame of reference at the point on the earth where they separate contact with the earth, wile traveling it moves over a different point on the earth with a slightly different frame of reference. When traveling straight north/south the different angular velocity of the earth causes the plane/bullet to shear right or left, when traveling straight east/west the angular difference doesn't change so it doesn't shear to the side, however, the Eötvös effect then becomes an issue, causing upwards or downwards shear. The Eötvös effect is what was actually demonstrated in the video when the presenter mistakenly called it the Coriolis effect, though they both tend to get lumped together often.

Planes do steer against the Coriolis effect. This is quite small in comparison to the other forces a plane steers against. It doesn't need to be pre-calculated, just compensated for as the plane's flight is often adjusted. No pilot would notice.

Long range projectiles must take into account several factors, such as drop due to gravity, wind shear, air resistance changes because of density caused by different air temperature, thermal expansion due to barrel heating, etc. The Coriolis effect is one of the smaller factors for light projectiles like a bullet. Typical bullet ranges are not enough to matter in comparison to the other factors. However, heavy artillery have much longer ranges and are affected by the Coriolis effect more. This is enough of a factor that the military has tables for artillery:

In particular page 102 provides a compensation table for long ranges at 30 degrees north latitude.

The Coriolis effect cannot be seen in a sink or toilet, they are too small and there are too many other effects that are stronger. Hurricanes, on the other hand, are affected. Opposite spins in opposite hemispheres.

Thork, you can claim it doesn't exist, but you have a lot of evidence and documentation to unseat first. This is a well explored topic and has been demonstrated for many years. This seems similar to when you claimed the power poles across Lake Pontchartrain didn't exist at all or when you claimed Mt. Rainer was next to the ocean. It just makes you look like a nutter when you claim something doesn't exist when it does. The Coriolis exists and must be explained for in the flat earth model.

There is something very fundamental about bullets. And no one has put their finger on it yet. Why do bullets get effected and planes don't? Its a simple one sentence answer if you know why.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the spin stabilization imparted by the rifling. I bet that you're going to say something like the right hand twist of the rifling causes the bullet to drift to the right and is often mistaken for the Coriolis effect.

There is something very fundamental about bullets. And no one has put their finger on it yet. Why do bullets get effected and planes don't? Its a simple one sentence answer if you know why.

I'm guessing that you're referring to the spin stabilization imparted by the rifling. I bet that you're going to say something like the right hand twist of the rifling causes the bullet to drift to the right and is often mistaken for the Coriolis effect.

Actually no. But it is the spin. Aircraft don't spin. So they follow the air and fly straight relative to earth but not free space. An INS on an aircraft doesn't though ... because it has gyroscopes. And that's what a bullet does. Rifling makes the bullet go straight and like a spinning top, it doesn't want to deviate from its direction in free space so they do bend right when fired North in respect to the earth. Adding in rifling made bullets less susceptible to things you can't control such as gusts and tiny manufacturing imbalances, but made them susceptible to predictable things like Coriolis. This is why meteors don't make a curve in the sky, bombs don't fall to the right, missiles don't compensate for it, and aircraft don't need to adjust. Just bullets.

The one sentence answer is "bullets suffer from gyroscopic rigidity and precession, aircraft do not"

Well that was fun. Shame it was Markjo and that he doesn't ever let new people explore ideas, but hopefully the other site will be working again soon and he can go back there and complain about how round the earth is.